B. Nagoji Rao vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer .

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9361 OF 2017 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 14353/2016]

B. NAGOJI RAO PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ANR. RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.9362/2017 @ SLP(C) NO. 14357/2016,

CIVIL APPEAL NO.9363/2017 @ SLP(C) NO. 14356/2016

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.

There is a delay of 142 days (SLP(C)

No.14353/2016), 148 days (SLP(C) No.14357/2016) and

110 days (SLP(C) No.14356/2016) in filing these

petitions.

2. Delay condoned.

3. Leave granted.

4. After having heard the learned counsel for the

appellants and the learned counsel for the

respondents, we are of the view that the following Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NARENDRA PRASAD Date: 2017.08.10 contentions need consideration by the High Court with 16:58:18 IST Reason:

reference to the factual position which is not

1 available before us.

5. The contention raised by the appellants is that

the land value should depend upon the quality of the

land and not based on the crop which has been grown

in the land at the time of Section 4(1) notification.

To put it in clearer terms, in the case of the

appellants there is no dispute that at the time of

the notification they were growing sugarcane but in

the adjacent land, arecanut trees have been

cultivated. In the case of lands cultivated with

arecanut trees compensation granted is Rs.10.08 Lacs

per acre, whereas in the case of sugarcane the land

value granted to the appellants is Rs.2.38 Lacs per

acre and in the case of some other sugarcane fields,

it is Rs.2.65 Lacs per acre. Our attention has been

drawn on this aspect in respect of the adjacent land,

as reflected in the order passed by a coordinate

Bench.

6. According to the learned counsel appearing for

the respondents it is not as if in all the adjacent

lands arecanut have been grown. It is also submitted

that in some adjacent lands it is sugarcane and in

some it is arecanut Be that as it may, as we have

already referred to the above factual position of the

adjacent land and particularly the evidence regarding

the quality of soil not available before us, which

2 requires verification on the basis of evidence

adduced before the Reference Court. As the records

are available with the High Court, we are of the view

that the matter requires reconsideration on the above

aspect. In the process of such inquiry, if the High

Court comes to a conclusion that the quality of the

land of the appellants is that of the lands where

arecanut trees have been grown, needless to say they

will be entitled to similar treatment in the matter

of compensation. What is material is the quality of

the land and it does not necessarily depend on the

crops grown at a particular time or season.

7. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgments

and remit the matters to the High Court for fresh

consideration. It will be open to both the sides to

take all available contentions and refer to whatever

materials and judgments in the case of adjacent lands

for the purpose of establishing their point.

8. We make it clear that in the event of the High

Court granting any enhancement of compensation, the

appellants shall not be entitled for any statutory

benefits for the period of delay either before the

High Court at the appellate stage or before this

Court when these petitions by way of special leave

have been filed.

9. The appeals are, accordingly, disposed of.

3

10. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

11. There shall be no orders as to costs.

.......................J. [KURIAN JOSEPH]

.......................J. [R. BANUMATHI] NEW DELHI;

JULY 20, 2017.

4 ITEM NO.10 COURT NO.6 SECTION IV-A

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 14353/2016

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 17-08-2015 in MFA No. 2110/2014 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore)

B. NAGOJI RAO PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ANR. RESPONDENT(S)

WITH SLP(C) NO. 14357/2016 (IV-A) SLP(C) NO. 14356/2016 (IV-A)

Date : 20-07-2017 These petitions were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI

For Petitioner(s) Mr. S.N. Bhat, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Parikshit P. Angadi,Adv.

Mr. Naveen R. Nath, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.

The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed judgment.

(NARENDRA PRASAD) (RENU DIWAN) COURT MASTER (SH) ASST. REGISTRAR

(Signed “Reportable” Judgment is placed on the file)

5